If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I was amused yesterday listening to Limbaugh go on about polygamy. How many times has he been married? How many times have you been married?

Limbaugh, twice. Me, once (we will celebrate our 11th anniversary this year). But, once again, the presumption that some marriages fail doesn't mean that we should eliminate the basic definitions of marriage in order to further degrade it. Rather, we should be looking at ways to strengthen marriage.

Originally Posted by Novaheart

Surely that is not the only such remark. Could you give me a list of expressions which would have the same effect so I can judge for myself if they are similar?

With regard to Islam, we've seen officers subjected to reassignments and disciplinary actions for simply teaching about it:

In the Spring of this year, US Army Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Dooley was condemned by the Joints Chiefs of Staff (JCS) and relieved of teaching duties at Joint Forces Staff College for teaching a course judged to be offensive to Islam.

The course he taught, Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism, was an elective course that Lt. Col. Dooley's superiors judged as presenting Islam in a negative way. His superiors were persuaded to come to this conclusion after receiving an October 2011 letter in which 57 Muslim organizations claimed to be offended by the course.

The fact that Lt. Col. Dooley is a highly decorated combat veteran with nearly 20 years of service under his belt apparently held little or no sway with the JCS. As a matter of fact, JCS Chairman General Martin Dempsey "personally attacked" Lt. Col. Dooley on C-Span on May 10, 2012, during a Pentagon News Conference.

Yet the craziest part of all this is that "the course content, the guest speakers, and the method of instruction" for the course was all approved by the the Joint Forces Staff College "years ago."

So, here you have someone who has been teaching a course that has been approved by the JFSC being fired for the content of the course. But, that's not all. The DADT repeal has already begun inhibiting speech among the services, and not bigoted speech, either. A recent letter from the Chief of Chaplains to congress contained the following examples:

•A senior chaplain on a major stateside military installation recently was stripped of his authority over the chapel under his charge for his insistence that, in accordance with federal law and military regulations proclaiming the chapel as a “sacred space,” the chapel would not be used to celebrate “marriages” between same-sex couples.
•A chaplain was threatened with early retirement then was moved to an assignment where he could “be supervised” after he forwarded an email to his subordinates that was a thoughtful reflection on the military’s former “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.
•At Andrews Air Force Base a senior NCO asked a chaplain for assistance over an incident that occurred in the public food court. Two sailors under his command were eating and talking when one of them mentioned he might want to be a chaplain someday but didn’t know how the new regulation allowing homosexuals to serve would affect that plan. Another service member at the next table who was listened to the conversation stood up and berated the two sailors for talking about the new policy and reported the “incident” to the NCO. Unsure of what to do, he instructed the soldier who want to become a chaplain that he needed to be more careful in public.
•A chaplain on funeral duty with some enlisted sailors heard them discussing how they felt it was unfair that fellow service members that chose the “gay” or lesbian lifestyle were allowed to choose their roommates, but as heterosexuals they were unable to do the same.
•A service school that trains officers experienced a recent incident in which a male service member sexually harassed another male service member through text messages, emails, phone calls and visible confrontations. The targeted member was not interested in a same-sex relationship, but the offending male insisted the two would make a good couple. The harassment was reported, but no disciplinary action resulted.

However, the Obama administration has specifically stated that it will not enforce conscience protections in the Defense Appropriations Act. They consider the following to be unacceptable:

H.R.4310
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Reported in House - RH)
SEC. 536. PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AND CHAPLAINS OF SUCH MEMBERS.

(a) Protection- Chapter 53 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 1034 the following new section:

`Sec. 1034a. Protection of rights of conscience of members of the Armed Forces and chaplains of such members
`(a) Protection of Rights of Conscience- The Armed Forces shall accommodate the conscience and sincerely held moral principles and religious beliefs of the members of the Armed Forces concerning the appropriate and inappropriate expression of human sexuality and may not use such conscience, principles, or beliefs as the basis of any adverse personnel action, discrimination, or denial of promotion, schooling, training, or assignment. Nothing in this subsection precludes disciplinary action for conduct that is proscribed by chapter 47 of this title (the Uniform Code of Military Justice).
`(b) Protection of Chaplains-

(1) For purposes of this title, a military chaplain is--
`(A) a certified religious leader or clergy of a faith community who, after satisfying the professional and educational requirements of the commissioning service, is commissioned as an officer in the Chaplains Corps of one of the branches of the Armed Forces; and
`(B) a representative of the faith group of the chaplain, who remains accountable to the endorsing faith group for the religious ministry involved to members of the Armed Forces, to--
`(i) provide for the religious and spiritual needs of members of the Armed Forces of that faith group; and
`(ii) facilitate the religious needs of members of the Armed Forces of other faith groups.
`(2) No member of the Armed Forces may--
`(A) direct, order, or require a chaplain to perform any duty, rite, ritual, ceremony, service, or function that is contrary to the conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs of the chaplain, or contrary to the moral principles and religious beliefs of the endorsing faith group of the chaplain; or
`(B) discriminate or take any adverse personnel action against a chaplain, including denial of promotion, schooling, training, or assignment, on the basis of the refusal by the chaplain to comply with a direction, order, or requirement prohibited by subparagraph (A).

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 53 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1034 the following new item:

1034a. Protection of rights of conscience of members of the Armed Forces and chaplains of such members.

The administration has stated that it will not enforce these provisions, even if they are passed into law. And, given that the adminstration is forcing military doctors to perform abortions, whether they have an objection or not, it's unlikely that any other conscience clauses will be permitted to interfere with the imposed agenda.

Originally Posted by Novaheart

You forget that I have worked for two huge corporations. I am quite aware that anytime a black employee is disciplined she (and it always a she) goes to HR, claims it's because she black, and the disciplinary action is reversed. I will allow that this might happen in the military behind discipline of a gay soldier. Since it's hardly a unique circumstance then I don't see how it's a gay specific issue. What it really sounds like, is what I have said all along, you can't call people ethnic slurs anymore and now us meanies won't let you call gay men faggots. We've just taken all the fun out of being a nonchristian haven't we? You can't bond over calling gay people names. Boy are we mean.

Once again, you play the bigot card, instead of dealing with the facts (and you forget that I am well-acquainted with the fun of being a nonChristian). DADT repeal has already resulted in inequities against straight service members, such as the roommate provision cited above.

Originally Posted by Novaheart

George Bush was President when Bradley Manning went to boot camp clear up to his being trained for deployment to Iraq. Do you think it might have been some kind of stop-loss order rather than political correctness which cause him to keep slipping through the cracks? PS- I find no mention of his flagrant violations of prohibitions on gay sexual conduct" are you quoting from within?

No. A Stop-Loss would have kept him in uniform, but it would not have had any effect on his security clearance. The clearance is based on a background investigation, including interviews with friends, family and co-workers. The investigators would have had to miss some pretty obvious tells, including, yes, flagrant violations of policy and psychological issues, which are pretty easily found if you bother to look. For example, the Wikipedia article cites several obvious ones, as do other sources.

Six weeks into basic training, Manning was sent to the discharge unit because he was fighting with other recruits and talking back to the drill sergeants. The decision to discharge him was revoked.

Manning was reprimanded while at Fort Huachuca for posting three video messages to friends on YouTube, in which he described the inside of the "Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility" (SCIF). Despite this, he graduated from AIT and received a TS/SCI security clearance (Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information).

While stationed at FT Drum, he began dating Tyler Watkins, a an openly gay student at MIT with ties to the university's hacker community, and he posted on Facebook about it, regularly traveling 300 miles to Boston on visits.

While at FT DrumManning displayed emotional problems and had been referred to an Army mental-health counselor.

Manning wrote to a gender counselor in the United States, said he felt female, and discussed having sex reassignment surgery.

While home on leave, Manning attended a party at Boston University's hacker space, and lived as a woman, dressing in women's clothes, wearing a wig and going out.

Manning made no secret of being gay, keeping a fairy wand on his desk in theater and outing himself to his roommate.

After "being told he would lose his one day off a week for being persistently late, he overturned a table, damaging a computer that was sitting on it, and in the view of one soldier looked as though he was about to grab a rifle from a gun rack, before his arms were pinned behind his back. Several witnesses to the incident believed his access to sensitive material ought to have been withdrawn at that point. The following month, he began posting on Facebook that he felt alone and hopeless."

"Manning sent an e-mail to his master sergeant, Paul Adkins, saying he was suffering from gender identity disorder and attaching a photograph of himself dressed as a woman.

"Manning told Lamo that his commander had found out about the gender issue before his arrest, after looking at his medical files at the beginning of May.[/B] He said he had set up Twitter and YouTube accounts in Breanna's name to give her a digital presence, writing in the Lamo chat: "i wouldn't mind going to prison for the rest of my life, or being executed so much, if it wasn't for the possibility of having pictures of me ... plastered all over the world press ... as [a] boy ... the CPU is not made for this motherboard.'"

So, we have a Soldier with a history of authority issues, who violates OPSEC while in training, but still gets a clearance, and then keeps that clearance while being openly gay, cross-dressing and exhibiting mental health issues, including a violent outburst that required physical restraint. We're not exactly talking subtle, here. Now, if you were his commanding officer, even if you don't pursue disciplinary actions or have an issue with his being gay, would you allow him to carry a weapon and continue his access to classified material, or would you have suspended his clearance and reported him up the chain? That's not a matter of bias, it's concern for the Soldier, himself. Manning was exhibited all of the associated behaviors of suicidal Soldiers. He should have been removed from his position for his own safety, if not the good of the others around him, not to mention the United States. Why wasn't that done?

Originally Posted by Novaheart

Where is General Petraeus right now? How much of the American taxpayer money went down a rathole when this man who had done little else besides train and study for greatness fucked himself over with an ersatz socialite bimbo from South Tampa? How much is he costing us to this day? What's his excuse? How are gay soldiers the reason for the Petraeuses of the military, and they are legion?

Yeah, that whole counterinsurgency thing in Iraq counted as "little else". Buy a clue, will you?

The introduction of women in large numbers into the force without maintaining separate facilities has, as I've repeatedly stated, produced massive unintended consequences, including proliferation of affairs, sexual misconduct, harrassment and mission failure. Just recently, a recruiter and a female enlistee were involved in a murder suicide over their illicit relationship. Sex between service members is corrosive, whether straight or gay, but we can keep men and women apart to some degree through separate sleeping and latrine facilities, but once you separate gender from orientation, you now have men and women with same-sex attraction in close quarters with no safety mechanisms. As a result, we are seeing horrific numbers on sexual misconduct, with no means of prevention beyond counseling and training, but given that we have been trying to train nature out of Soldiers for two decades with poor results, how do you propose that we deal with it?

When you go to work tomorrow, tell the black, gay, and female officers that they are part of a plan to undo order in the prison system.

I take it you missed the whole story about a gang member impregnating 4 female corrections officers? I can sit here and give you countless examples proving that what you posted as an attempt at snark is exactly what is happening to the prison system. So, instead of being a wise ass, you only proved me to be right.

I take it you missed the whole story about a gang member impregnating 4 female corrections officers? I can sit here and give you countless examples proving that what you posted as an attempt at snark is exactly what is happening to the prison system. So, instead of being a wise ass, you only proved me to be right.

Perhaps the lesson from the pregnant corrections officers is :

• Prison guards should not be drawn from the same demographic as the prison population.

• Hoes shouldn't be prison guards.

Who were the prison guards that needed to be retired and replaced in the course of prison reform because they were brutal and corrupt?

Originally Posted by Novaheart
I was amused yesterday listening to Limbaugh go on about polygamy.

Considering that Nova has already been less than honest in the Collins thread about what a Conservative talk show host actually said...I suggest we talk anything he mentions about Limbaugh...Levin...Hannity etc with a huge grain of salt.

Considering that Nova has already been less than honest in the Collins thread about what a Conservative talk show host actually said...I suggest we talk anything he mentions about Limbaugh...Levin...Hannity etc with a huge grain of salt.

I wouldn't respond to Nova until after he has read and responded completely to Ody's post. Ody has given him actual proof of how the military is marginalizing and stigmatizing the traditionally religious. Ody has shown that religious values that were fine last year are now subject to disciplinary action because of a single political policy change.

When Nova can actually respond logically, coherently, and with factual information to that post, then he's worth your time on this issue. Otherwise, no.

• Prison guards should not be drawn from the same demographic as the prison population.

• Hoes shouldn't be prison guards.

Who were the prison guards that needed to be retired and replaced in the course of prison reform because they were brutal and corrupt?

Once again, you miss the point. When male guards are turned by the prisoners, they do it for money. When female guards are turned, it's for love/sex. Both are wrong, but the guard who is in love with an inmate is more dangerous than a guard who is taking in a few extra bucks, because the corrupt guard still knows what he is dealing with. It's unlikely that he will aid an escape, for example, or facilitate a murder, while a guard motivated by love will do anything to protect the object of her affections, including aid escapes or murder threats, possibly even other guards.

Originally Posted by Novaheart

Once again, you show that you are incapable of having a conversation, incapable of reading what is written, and generally obnoxious.

Here's a primer for you:

Full of - means has plenty, it does not mean everyone

Many - means more than a few, it does not mean everyone

Some - means a portion, it does not mean everyone

Full does not mean "plenty." There are several definitions, and all but one are more than just "plenty." Full means complete, total or filled to capacity. To say that a force is full of bigots, you are not saying that there are "plenty" of them, you are saying that the force contains as many bigots as could possibly fit. When you say that "The military is full of white people who don't like black people and vice versa," you are saying that we are completely filled to capacity with "white people who don't like black people and vice versa." That is patently false. We know your opinions on immigrants, and some of your comments could easily be construed as nativist bigotry. Do you really want to play that game?

I wouldn't respond to Nova until after he has read and responded completely to Ody's post. Ody has given him actual proof of how the military is marginalizing and stigmatizing the traditionally religious. Ody has shown that religious values that were fine last year are now subject to disciplinary action because of a single political policy change.

Problem is Ody's trying to convince a gay atheist of a reality he refuses to see. You and I will get more useful knowledge about the subject than Nova ever will and he's the one that would benefit the most from what Ody is trying to tell him.

Not to mention the stance the Pentagon is taking with the policy change is one that Nova wholeheartedly agrees with.

When Nova can actually respond logically, coherently, and with factual information to that post, then he's worth your time on this issue. Otherwise, no.

We'll be waiting the rest of our lives for what I bolded in what you said.

We'll be waiting the rest of our lives for what I bolded in what you said.

Then it's not worth wasting your breath.

The problem is that no matter what the facts say, the gay activists have steadily used the Hegelian dialectic and slick PR to manipulate people's thinking to the point where gay marriage is a done deal. Nova knows that all he has to do is sit back and wait a bit. He doesn't need to look at the facts, which are being largely dismissed by the elite ruling class. He doesn't need to look at anything at all.

The flood is coming, and while those of us who understand the future damage try to pile up the sandbags, Nova and his ilk can just sit in front of their TVs and wait for the weather reports.